This may seem like dumb basic questions,but, I don’t know!!!
What is the difference between 83 and 100?
Which is better track to use on the layout?
Can 83 and 100 be used on the same layout?
I have some track from Atlas, Tyco, and some made in Yugoslavia from about 1987/88 time frame in good shape, the rails line up and I have used some of it for a test track and it still works fine…I need to order some additional track for the layout.
How do I tell if the track I have is code 83 or 100?
I was a real novice in 87,and after 20 some years not involved in the hobby,that hasn’t changed.
Any direction,thoughts,opinions would certainly be appreciated. My brain is rebelling from information overload,
Hi, and welcome. If you look to the right, find Search Community and a blank space. Type in a google-like search syntax and you will find many threads dealing with this topic.
More directly, it is a measure, in height, of the distance from the rail foot to the running surface atop the head, expressed in thousandths of an inch. Code 100 was used somewhat more in years past because it was available, rugged, and relatively inexpensive. It represents a scale weight per yard of about 165 pounds, which places it above any weight/yd used on any of the Class 1 railroads. As far as I know, only the Pennsy and maybe one or two other heavy users used 155 pound rail.
Code 83 is at about the upper limit of rail weight and profile that modern users would want, particularly if they desire to be truer in scale to the prototype. You would use that on the mains where heavy tonnages are being hauled and heavy engines are doing the pulling. Code 70 is better for the average short line with modest tonnages, and Code 40-50 would be found in light industrial track or in interurban/trolley use in the streets. Of course, there would be variations from place to place and company to company.
Those lower profile rails will require a lot of care in both handling and laying so that your typical wheel flanges on model axles will not get hung up on spike head details or on ballast and other materials introduced to produce a realistic looking rail system.
Thanks for the quick education on track size and the search reference.
How do I tell which code track I currently have?,there are no markings or indication on the track anywhere,other than manufacturer, where made, etc…Is there a simple way to ID track size?
The “code” of a rail is the height of the rail in thousandths of an inch. Thus, code 100 rail is 0.100 inch or 100/1000 (1/10) inch tall, code 83 is 0.083 inch tall. By the vintage of the track you have, I’d be willing to bet it’s all code 100 rail.
I’ve refered many beginners to this resource, from the webpage of the National Model Railroad Association (NMRA), just for beginners:
Again, thanks for the response…I have started reading the NMRA site,plus other searches…
As you know,the hobby is more than throwing down some track and watching the choo choo go round and round…
I want it to be fun,and learn as I go,again…alot to learn.
On a search someone indicated that the code 83 did not have the spike holes in the ties,which was another way to tell the difference…the track I have is not corroded, and is cleaning up nicely with the eraser bar…which is over 20 years old also…
The Atlas Code 83 flex track does have nail holes, but they don’t come all the way through the surface. If you plan on using track nails through the ties, you need to turn the track section over and punch them the rest of the way through. It’s done this way for the modelers that like the clean look on top of the ties, with no holes.
It wouldn’t hurt before you get too far along to take a look at the “click track” that is now available from Kato, Atlas and Bachmann. These are track pieces that includes track and roadbed together, and “click” together. The Kato Unitrack line is code 83 and also has a very thin profile, much thinner than Atlas code 83. It could save you a lot of frustration, and gives a good result.
My current layout was started in 1984 when code 100 was pretty much it, no 83, so much of my mainline is still code 100. Not about to rip out a couple of hundred feet at this stage. However, I also have some code 83 now, and have had code 70 also for many years. In fact, several years ago while working on my NMRA program, I scratchbuilt some switches in code 70 and code 83 which was my first into to code 83. But like I said, no way at this stage am I going to remove the code 100. They layout is “finished” and I am too old to start over.
Addressing the question of using both Code 100 and Code 83 on the same layout:
Since secondary trackage is usually laid with smaller rail than the main tracks, this difference can be represented by using the taller rail for main and through tracks, while laying yard tracks, passing sidings and industrial spurs with rail that is smaller - right down to Code 55.
In HO scale, Code 100 is actually taller than any rail ever used. Even the rather small amount of 152 pd/yd rail laid on the Horseshoe Curve would be accurately modeled with Code 93 rail - if anyone would produce it. Code 83 is a good size match for the 132 - 135 pd/yd rail used on modern mainline tracks.
My own layout uses LOTS of Code 100 - much of it re-laid for the fourth or fifth time. However, it’s all being laid in the Netherworld, a complex array of (to be) hidden staging yards and thoroughfare tracks. Track which will be visible once the scenery is all in place will be code 83 (or smaller.)
Another thread addresses the question of just how detailed and accurate modeled track should be. That is a decision only you can make, but bear in mind that the first thing to demand is dependability. The most perfectly detailed track in the world is a waste if your trains won’t stay on the rails.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - on flex track with hand-laid specialwork)
I agree with everything Selector and Chuck said. I’ll only add …
I’ve used codes 100, 83, 70, 55 and 40 rail for HO-scale track. I never had flange-clearance issues as long as “low-profile” spikes were used except that code 40 needed to be fastened to ties using glue or solder without spikes, AND car/locomotive wheels followed NMRA specications (no pizza-cutter flanges).